Guidelines in releasing Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of the Judiciary

The mandatory public disclosure of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) of public officials was proposed by an administration lawmaker Camarines Sur Rep. Salvio Fortuno who filed the House Bill 5694 that provides for the mandatory public disclosure of the SALN. The bill centralizes the filing of statements with the Office of the Ombudsman. It is important to note the procedure on how the SALN of the Judiciary is release in order for us to have a wider view on the proposed House Bill. Access by the public to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) of Supreme Court justices, as well as magistrates of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Sharia Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and court personnel, is regulated in accordance with the following resolutions, copies of which are attached hereto. These guidelines, promulgated by the Court En Banc, govern the procedures for the release of the SALs and are binding on the entire Judiciary. Guidelines Sometime in 1989, Jose Alejandrino, a litigant, requested the Clerk of Court for the SALs of members of the Supreme Court who took part in the decision reducing from P2.4 million to P100,000.00 the damages awarded him by the trial court in a breach of contract case. In an En Banc resolution promulgated May 2, 1989, the Court unanimously expressed its willingness to have the Clerk of Court furnish copies of the SALs of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices to any person upon request, provided there is a legitimate reason for the request, it being in fact unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, for (a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy, or (b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public. However, the Court also noted that similar requests may be made upon the justices and judges of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Sharia Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts under circumstances which may endanger, diminish or destroy their independence and objectivity in the performance of their judicial functions or expose them to revenge for adverse decisions, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, or other untoward consequences. As such, it resolved to lay down the following guidelines on requests for SALs of justices, judges, and court personnel: (1) All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, in the case of any Justice; or with the Court Administrator, in the case of any Judge, and shall state the purpose of the request. (2) The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the right to information which is subject to the limitations provided by law. Under specific circumstances, the need for the fair and just adjudication of litigations may require a court to be wary of deceptive requests for information which shall otherwise be freely available. Where the request is directly or indirectly traced to a litigant, lawyer, or interested party in a case pending before the court, or where the court is reasonably certain that a disputed matter will come before it under circumstances from which it may, also reasonably, be assumed that the request is not made in

good faith and for a legitimate purpose, but to fish for information and, with the implicit threat of its disclosure, to influence a decision or to warn the court of the unpleasant consequences of an adverse judgment, the request may be denied. (3) Where a decision has just been rendered by a court against the person making the request and the request for information appears to be a fishing expedition intended to harass or get back at the Judge, the request may be denied. (4) In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements or where the nature of their work exposes judges to assaults against their personal safety, the request shall not only be denied but should be immediately reported to the military (5) The reason for the denial shall be given in all cases. (En Banc Resolution dated May 2, 1989, Re: Request of Jose Alejandrino) Fishing Expeditions This policy was reiterated and further strengthened by the Court in a resolution three years later. In 1992, the Court denied the request of a Graft Investigation Officer from the Office of the Ombudsman and a military captain for certified true copies of the sworn statements of the assets, liabilities, and net worth of two judges, it appearing that the purpose of the said request is to fish for information against the said judges and considering the Guidelines laid down in Alejandrino. The Court also authorized the Court Administrator to act on requests for copies of the assets and liabilities, as well as other papers and documents on file with the 201 Personnel Records of lower court judges and personnel, only upon a court subpoena duly signed by the Presiding Judge, in a pending criminal case against a judge or personnel, and in the case of the Ombudsman, upon the appropriate request personally signed by the Ombudsman, provided that in all instances the request shall conform to the guidelines issued by the Court in the abovementioned resolution dated May 2, 1989 regarding Jose M. Alejandrino and such document or paper is relevant and material to the case being tried by the Court or under investigation by the Ombudsman.(AM No. 92-9-851-RTC, Re: Request for Certified True Copies of the Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, September 22, 1992) In as much as the responsibility of the courts is to provide the search for truth and since the provision of the law is clear, the public has the right to know our assets, liabilities and net worth, when it aids to a better justice system and society are served then there is no point to argue especially so if our assets come from sweat and hard toils.